Yehoshua/0

Yehoshua

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Unique Traits

Faith in Hashem

Yehoshua exhibits consistent faith in Hashem, being one of the few in his generation not to participate in either of the nation's two biggest debacles in the Wilderness, the Sin of the Golden Calf and the Sin of the Spies.

Loyal Servant

Several verses highlight the close relationship that Yehoshua had with Moshe:

• "משרת משה" (Shemot 24:13) – Yehoshua is referred to as Moshe's "servant" four times.¹ It is not clear from the text what duties are included in "serving Moshe," though it is possible that Yehoshua took care of Moshe's physical needs. Regardless, the title highlights the close connection between the two leaders, and suggests that Yehoshua might have been groomed from early on to be Moshe's successor.
  
  
• "לֹא יָמִישׁ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל" (Shemot 33:11) – After the Sin of the Golden Calf, when Moshe erects his personal tent outside the camp, we are told that though Moshe would return to the camp, Yehoshua "did not depart from the tent".  What does this mean?  What does it teach about Yehoshua?
• Torah scholar– RalbagShemot Beur HaMilot 33:11About R. Levi b. Gershom and NetzivShemot 33:11About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin explain that Yehoshua spent his days delving into the Torah taught him by Moshe.² This diligence, Ralbag claims, is what merited Yehoshua to prophesy and lead the nation. Though we often think of Yehoshua as primarily a military leader, these sources emphasize his great Torah knowledge and devotion to Moshe's teachings as well.
• Trusted guard – SefornoShemot 33:11About R. Ovadyah Seforno suggests that it was Yehoshua's job to watch over Moshe's tent and guard that others from Israel would not enter. Ibn Kaspi adds that this highlights the trust Moshe had in Yehoshua, allowing him full access to and responsibility over his private tent.
• Inferior to Moshe – ShadalShemot 33:11About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, in contrast, suggests that the verse is not lauding Yehoshua, but rather highlighting the difference in level between him and Moshe. While Moshe went to the tent's entrance so as to hear Hashem "face to face," Yehoshua was relegated to the inside, where Hashem's voice did not reach.³ 
   
• "אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה כְּלָאֵם" (Bemidbar 11:26-29) – After Eldad and Medad begin to prophesy in the camp, Yehoshua tells Moshe "אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה כְּלָאֵם". From Moshe's reaction, "הַמְקַנֵּא אַתָּה לִי", it is clear that Yehoshua's accusation is motivated by a desire to protect Moshe's honor. Commentators offer several explanations of what it was that bothered Yehoshua, but all agree that he was acting to ensure that the people respect Moshe's authority and recognize his unique status:
• Content of prophecy – Eldad and Medad were prophesying about Moshe's upcoming death and Yehoshua's succession (RashiBemidbar 11:28About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki). To Yehoshua, the loyal servant, speaking about Moshe's replacement bordered on rebellion.
• Appearance of equality – In contrast to the elders who were able to prophesy only via partaking of Moshe's spirit,⁴ Eldad and Medad  prophesied on their own, with no connection to Moshe's abilities. This made it appear as if they might have independent capabilities that could compete with Moshe. This appearance of potential equality led to Yehoshua's zealous response. (R. HirschBemidbar 11:28About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch)
• Acting without permission – Alternatively, Yehoshua believed that the two were acting without permission (R"Y Bekhor ShorBemidbar 11:28About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor). Yehoshua  was upset by such disregard of Moshe's authority.

Military Prowess

See discussion below regarding Yehoshua's military leadership.

Uncontested Leader

The transition of leadership from Moshe to Yehoshua is one of the only smooth transitions of leadership in all of Tanakh. Yehoshua takes on the mantle without opposition and appears to be respected from the very beginning of his tenure.  How did he accomplish this?

• Yehoshua's relationship to Moshe – Yehoshua's prior role as Moshe's servant both lent him credibility in the people's eyes and helped prepare him for the task.
• Yehoshua's character – Yehoshua's role as general in the battle against Amalek made him an obvious candidate to lead the Conquest, while his spotless record in matters of faith marked him worthy of spiritual leadership as well.
• Moshe's foresight – The nation's acceptance of Yehoshua might have had as much to do with Moshe as with Yehoshua.  Moshe had the foresight to request of Hashem to choose a leader to replace him, making sure that his successor was appointed already in his lifetime and not only after his death. Moreover, the appointment was made publicly, preventing any questioning of Yehoshua's legitimacy.
• Lack of competition – Finally, given that the entire generation of the Wilderness had died out, excepting Yehoshua and Calev, there was not much competition for the job.  Yehoshua was an elder not only in wisdom but in years as well, being a couple of decades older than everyone else entering the land.

Miracle Maker

Yehoshua, like many prophets, acts as a miracle maker, splitting the Jordan as Moshe split the sea, and later praying that the sun stand still.  How did Yehoshua's miracle making compare to Moshe's?

• Splitting the Jordan: Nature vs. Miracle –  In contrast to the description of the Splitting of Yam Suf, which presents the nation as walking in between two walls of water, Yehoshua's miracle created just one wall of water,⁵ implying that the entire riverbed dried up below that point. What might this suggest about the nature of the miracle?
• Minimized – MalbimYehoshua 3:13About R. Meir Leibush Weiser emphasizes that, as such, this was a smaller miracle than that wrought by Moshe, for splitting a sea necessitates a suspension of nature on both sides.
• Maximized – On the other hand, the fact that a massive expanse of river had dried up was likely much more impressive than had there been just a small pathway.
• Natural – Y. Braslavi, in his article, נס כריתת הירדן, points out that due to certain features of the riverbed in the area of Adam specifically, during periods when the Jordan overflows it is possible that trees will uproot and fall into the riverbed, blocking the water flow below, or that a landslide of eroded soil will effectively create a dam, drying up the rest of the river (as has been attested to on occasion).⁶  Hashem might have similarly worked through nature in the time of Yehoshua.
  
  
• Splitting the Jordan: Why was the miracle necessary? Considering that there are many points along the Jordan which are shallow enough for people to cross,⁷ why was a miracle necessary at all?
• Necessary  – Yehoshua 3:15 emphasizes that during the spring, when the nation crossed, the river was overflowing. This would make it all but impossible for an entire nation, including women, children and elderly, to cross safely in a natural way. Moreover, had the nation attempted to cross naturally, they would have been vulnerable to Canaanite attack en route.
• Unnecessary - Alternatively, it is possible that a miracle was not really necessary in order to cross but was crucial to both demoralize the enemy⁸ and encourage the nation.⁹ Moreover, it helped Yehoshua gain the respect of the people, showing them that Hashem was with Yehoshua, miraculously aiding him, just as he had aided Moshe.¹⁰

• Stopping of the sun –The very enormity of this miracle creates discomfort for some commentators. Is it possible that the celestial bodies, ever constant in their movement, really stood still? Would that not wreak havoc with the entire astronomical system? Moreover, in Devarim 34 Hashem declares the miracles Moshe wrought unparalleled. Is not the suspension of the sun's movement on par with, or perhaps even greater than, Moshe's feats? [See Stopping of the Sun at Givon for elaboration.]

• Full miracle – Many sources¹¹ make no attempt to minimize the miracle, and assume that Hashem overturned nature so that the celestial spheres stopped in their paths, increasing the number of daylight hours.
• Minimized miracle – Hashem intervened to miraculously help the Israelites but He did not stop the sun to do so. Rather, though the sun set, Hashem ensured that its light continued to reflect and provide illumination (R. Moshe ibn ChiquitillaR. Yehuda ibn Balaamיהושע י׳:י״ב ) or He created an entirely new source of light (AbarbanelShemot 32:15אברבנאל, פירוש על מורה נבוכים ב׳:ל״הAbout R. Yitzchak Abarbanel in explaining Rambam).
• No Miracle – Rambam (as explained by EfodiCommentary on Moreh Nevukhim 2:35) claims that there was only a perception that time stood still.  Due to the speed of the victory, the soldiers felt as if the day had been lengthened and time had stopped.  Alternatively,  the description of the sun's standing still is simply a metaphoric way of expressing how the forces of nature aided Israel in battle.¹²

Military Leader

Amalek

Just weeks after leaving Egypt, Yehoshua already served as the nation's general-in-chief, leading the nation in battle against Amalek. However, the verses imply that the outcome on the battlefield had more to do with Moshe's raising or lowering of his hands than with Yehoshua's skills at warfare. What does this suggest about Yehoshua's military prowess?

• Skilled in warfare – RashbamShemot 17:11About R. Shemuel b. Meir understands that Moshe's raising of his hands acted as a morale booster for the nation (much like a flag bearer), while R"Y Bekhor ShorShemot 17:9-11About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor suggests that it was a sign to those remaining in the camp to send reinforcements.  According to both readings, the war was won through natural means and the victory presumably had much to do with Yehoshua's military skill.
• No skills necessary – R. Avraham b. HaRambamShemot 17:11About R. Avraham Maimonides and RambanShemot 17:9About R. Moshe b. Nachman assume that Moshe's raised hands were a gesture of prayer. Ramban further raises the possibility that Moshe took the staff so as to bring plagues upon the enemy. If so, it is possible that the victory was unrelated to military might and was supernatural in nature.¹³ Yehoshua need not have had previous experience or expertise on the battlefront as it was really Moshe's prayers and miracle-making which decided the outcome.

Later Wilderness Period

Interestingly, Yehoshua is not mentioned in the descriptions of any of the later battles in the Wilderness (against Arad, Sichon, Og, or Midyan). What does this imply?

• It is possible that despite the textual silence, Yehoshua led the military side of these battles as well, and this is simply assumed by the text.
• Alternatively, perhaps for most of the Wilderness period, it was Moshe who acted as general-in-chief,¹⁴ and Yehoshua's role in the battle with Amalek was exceptional, necessary only because during that first battle Moshe preferred to take a spiritual role.

Conquest of Canaan

Military Strategy – What was Yehoshua's military strategy when embarking on the Conquest?  Why did he attack the cities he did as opposed to others?  How was his relatively  inexperienced army able to vanquish the Canaanites who had the advantage of walled cities, iron chariots, and standing armies?

• Goal of conquest – It is possible that Yehoshua's goal in fighting was to vanquish enemy armies rather than to capture and settle the land. Moreover, he intended that the nation join together only to weaken their opponents as a whole, but that then each individual tribe would complete their own conquest. This might explain why Yehoshua only fights four main battles, those necessary to assert general control over the land, paving the way for the smaller battles.
• Choice of Campsite – Why was Gilgal chosen to be the nation's main military base? Considering that the nation returned there after each battle, one might have expected a more central location for the campsite.  This leads some¹⁵ to suggest that the verses refer to a different Gilgal located near Shechem.  Such a site might be attested to in Devarim 11:30 which speaks of Mt. Eival and Gerizim being "מוּל הַגִּלְגָּל אֵצֶל אֵלוֹנֵי מֹרֶה". Alternatively, Gilgal was chosen since its location near the Jordan created a bridge to the eastern bank, enabling easy recruitment of reinforcements.‎¹⁶
• Route of conquest – Prof. Elitzur¹⁷ suggests that in choosing the route of the Conquest, Yehoshua was guided by the desire to cut off the various Canaanite cities from each other, preventing them from forming alliances in which they might jointly assault Israel.

• As Yericho was the entry-way to the eastern bank of the Jordan, its capture  prevented the Canaanites from recruiting soldiers and requesting aid from those neighboring countries, while simultaneously enabling Israel to keep contact with those who had settled there.¹⁸ 
• Conquering the Ai and making peace with the Givonites gave Israel control over a line of territory that cut across the middle of the country.¹⁹ This effectively prevented cooperation between the southern and northern Canaanite kings,²⁰ forcing each side to fight alone.
• In the battle against the South, too, Yehoshua first severs the hill country from the cities of the coast, attacking Livnah, Lakhish, and Eglon (all located at the foothills of mountains) and only afterwards moving inland to conquer the mountainous Devir and Chevron (who could then no longer request aid from coastal cities).

• Compensating for military weaknesses – Y. Yadin²¹ points out that the verses emphasize how Yehoshua compensated for many of his military disadvantages by making use of cunning and deception:

• Uneven fighting forces – In the battles against both the southern kings and the northern kings, the verses emphasize that Yehoshua came upon his enemies "פִּתְאֹם". Without vast military experience, weapons, or massive numbers, the element of surprise was extremely important for victory.
• Lack of chariots – Yehoshua ensured that much of the conquest took place in the hill country where one of the main advantages of the Canaanite army, their iron chariots, were rendered useless.
• Attacking walled cities – In attacking the walled cities, too, Yehoshua chose not to besiege them (a very time-consuming affair), nor to attack with ladders or battering rams (due to the heavy cost in lives), but rather to use cunning:
• Yericho – Though Yericho was destroyed via miracle, it is possible that originally Yehoshua had sent spies to find a weak-point through which commando forces could penetrate the city walls. Rachav's home, built into the wall of the city, proved ideal and the spies proceeded to convince her to act as a fifth column and allow them entry. For elaboration on this theory, see Purpose of the Spies in Yehoshua 2.
• Ai – When attacking Ai, Yehoshua fools the enemy into thinking that the Israelites are fleeing, leading the enemy out of the safety of their walled cities, and allowing the ambush to enter.
• Southern cities – Here, too, Yehoshua's request of Hashem that the "sun stand still" and the day be extended might have been motivated by a desire to vanquish his enemies before nightfall when they would be able to return to the safety of their walled cities.

• Miracle and Nature – Throughout Sefer Yehoshua, there is a gradual weaning of the nation away from miraculous victory towards natural fighting.  Yericho is conquered solely through supernatural means. The battle of the Ai is fought naturally but the military strategy is Divinely designed.  In the southern campaign, most of the fighting is natural but supernatural help comes at the critical moment in the form of the sun standing still. Finally, the last battle against the northern kings appears to be won without any miraculous intervention at all.

• Was Yehoshua successful? Yehoshua 12 lists 31 kings vanquished by Yehoshua and the Israelites, but the very next chapter shares that much of the land had still to be inherited, "הָאָרֶץ נִשְׁאֲרָה הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד לְרִשְׁתָּהּ".  How expansive was Yehoshua's conquest?  Did he achieve his goals? See above that Yehoshua's goal might not have been to settle the entire land, but to weaken the enemy armies, paving the way for individual conquests of the tribes.

Possible Flaws / Sins

Hesitant Leadership?

• Initial silence in the story of the spies? – Both Yehoshua and Calev disassociate themselves from the negative report of the other spies, but perhaps surprisingly it is Calev, rather than Yehoshua, who appears to take the lead role in combating their claims. Thus, it is Calev who initially stands up to hush the people after the spies speak (Bemidbar 13:30), while Yehoshua is not mentioned until the next chapter. How are we to understand Yehoshua's initial silence?²²

• Pointless to talk – ShadalBemidbar 13:30About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto and R. HirschBemidbar 13:30About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch claim that due to Yehoshua's position as "משרת משה", he realized that anything he would say to defend Moshe or sway the people would be ineffective. They would just attribute his stance to his loyalty to Moshe and not take his message to heart, so there was no point in speaking up.
• Different ideology – Alternatively, it is possible that Yehoshua disagreed with the ideology behind Calev's speech. Calev attempted to persuade the people that they were capable of conquest, but this suggests that victory is about military strength rather than Hashem's aid. Yehoshua, thus, speaks up only afterwards to highlight how all is in Hashem's hand, "אִם חָפֵץ בָּנוּ י״י וְהֵבִיא אֹתָנוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וּנְתָנָהּ לָנוּ".‎²³
• Waiting for Moshe's guidance – While Moshe was still alive, Yehoshua might not have felt comfortable acting independently without guidance from his mentor.  As such, he might hesitated, seeking a clue from Moshe as to how to respond.²⁴  This need not be viewed as a lack of leadership, but as a sign of Yehoshua's complete trust in and obedience to Moshe.
  
  

• Absence during the Sin of the Golden Calf – Most commentators assume that Yehoshua stayed at the foot of the mountain, apart from the Israelite camp, throughout the forty days that Moshe spoke with Hashem. As such, he was entirely unaware of the Sin of the Golden Calf and could not be expected to have intervened to stop it. However, when Moshe descends the mountain, Yehoshua tells him that he hears voices of war. Considering that Yehoshua is the nation's general, why, if he assumed that there was a battle taking place, did he not go to the people's aid?
• Waiting for Moshe – It is possible that Yehoshua was not independent enough to act without orders from superiors. As others had been put in charge of the nation during Moshe's absence he waited until they (or Moshe) turned to him. One might question whether this is a positive or negative trait.  Perhaps Yehoshua's greatness lay in his obedience to superiors rather than in his initiative-taking.
• Unaware of cries – Alternatively, Yehoshua did not hear the cries at all until speaking with Moshe. It is possible that Yehoshua had actually ascended the mountain with Moshe, either part way²⁵ or entirely,²⁶ and that only midway down the mountain, as they neared the camp, did Yehoshua hear the cries. If so, Yehoshua showed no negligence in his duty at all.

Making a Covenant with the Givonites

How should Yehoshua's decision to make a covenant with the Givonites be viewed?  Should he be blamed for not taking proper precautions to uncover their deceit? [For discussion of the larger issue of whether or not one is permitted to call for peace, see Calling for Peace in the Conquest of Canaan.]

• Honest mistake – Yehoshua is not castigated nor punished for his actions, suggesting that his deed was viewed as an honest mistake.
• Blameworthy – RalbagYehoshua 9:15About R. Levi b. Gershom suggests, on the other hand, that though Yehoshua could not be expected to detect the Givonites trickery, his mistake lay in not seeking the advice of Hashem before acting, as the narrator points out in 9:13, "וְאֶת פִּי ה' לֹא שָׁאָלוּ".  One might go further to suggest that regardless, Yehoshua was too trusting. When the Givonites first arrive, it is the laymen of Israel, not Yehoshua, who think to ask, "אוּלַי בְּקִרְבִּי אַתָּה יוֹשֵׁב וְאֵיךְ [אֶכְרָת ] (אכרות) לְךָ בְרִית".

Doubting Hashem?

Change of Name

In Bemidbar 13, when listing the names of the twelve spies, the text refers to Yehoshua by his original name, Hoshea, and later explains that Moshe had changed his name: "וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה לְהוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן נוּן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ".  As already before this story Yehoshua had been referred to by his new name, commentators debate both when and why this change of name took place:

• Before the sending of the spies – Many assume that the change of name took place where it is mentioned, right before the sending of the spies.  In earlier chapters usage of the the name Yehoshua is anachronistic, used only because that is how Yehoshua later became known. These sources differ regarding the reason for the name change:
• Prayer – Bavli SotahSotah 34bAbout Bavli Sotah, Bemidbar Rabbah16:9About Bemidbar Rabbah and RashiBemidbar 13:16About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki explain that Moshe changed Yehoshua's name, adding a yud to represent the name of Hashem, as a prayer that Hashem should save him from the evil counsel of the other spies ("י-ה יושיעך מעצת מרגלים").²⁷  Netziv points out that this understanding implies that Moshe knew in advance that the spies were to stumble, and questions, if so, why would Moshe have sent them?
• Promotion – ShadalBemidbar 13:16About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, thus, suggests instead that the change of name marked Yehoshua's promotion from servant (משרת משה) to greatness (being on par with "רָאשֵׁי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל").
• When Yehoshua became Moshe's servant – RashbamBemidbar 13:16About R. Shemuel b. Meir and R"Y Bekhor ShorBemidbar 13:16About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor maintain that the name change took place much earlier, when Moshe first appointed Yehoshua to be his servant.  As evidence of such a custom, they point to Yosef and Daniel who similarly take on new names when they begin to serve the king.²⁸ The change is mentioned first by the story of the spies only because Yehoshua is listed there by his "official" name and Tanakh needed to identify Hoshea as Yehoshua.

Family Life

Tanakh does not explicitly discuss Yehoshua's family life, but Divrei HaYamim I 7:27 might imply that he had no children. In listing the descendants of Ephraim, the chapter mentions Yehoshua but no further descendants, suggesting that he might not have had any. Bavli Megillah 14b, however, maintains that though Yehoshua bore no boys he did bear girls. The gemara presents him as marrying Rachav (after she converted) and claims that among their descendants was Chuldah the prophetess.

Yehoshua vs. Moshe

In Bavli Bava Batra Moshe and Yehoshua are compared, with Moshe being likened to the sun and Yehoshua to the moon. The analogy is an apt one, as many of Yehoshua's deeds do indeed reflect those of his teacher. Again and again, the reader feels a sense of déjà vu, as Yehoshua re-enacts events from the life of Moshe. Moreover, the text consciously calls for a comparison of the two luminaries via both explicit references and literary allusions. What are we to make of the many similarities between the lives of the two leaders?  What can we learn from the differences? For a full discussion of the parallels and their significance, see Moshe and Yehoshua.

¹ See Shemot 24:13, Shemot 33:11, Bemidbar 11:28, and Yehoshua 1:1.

² According to this reading, the phrase "לֹא יָמִישׁ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל" parallels Hashem's later words to Yehoshua in Yehoshua 1:8, "לֹא יָמוּשׁ סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה מִפִּיךָ".

³ In other words, "לֹא יָמִישׁ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל" does not mean that Yehoshua never left the tent, but rather that specifically when Hashem appeared to Moshe, he remained inside, while Moshe left to hear God speak.
A. Belcher,in his article, יהושע משרת משה, raises a fourth possible reading of the verse, suggesting that after the sin of the Calf, Yehoshua was so disappointed in the nation that he could not bear to interact with them, leading him to remain in the tent rather than join the nation in the camp. The verse, thus, highlights the two leaders' very differing reactions to the nation's sin. While the elder Moshe was willing to "return to the camp" despite the nation's failure, the younger Yehoshua was much less forgiving. [Cf. the story of R. Shimon b. Yochai and his son upon leaving the cave in Bavli Shabbat 33b.]

⁴ See Bemidbar 11:28: "וַיָּאצֶל מִן הָרוּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו וַיִּתֵּן עַל שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ הַזְּקֵנִים".

⁵ See Yehoshua 3:13, "מֵי הַיַּרְדֵּן יִכָּרֵתוּן הַמַּיִם הַיֹּרְדִים מִלְמָעְלָה וְיַעַמְדוּ נֵד אֶחָד".

⁶ This phenomenon has been attested to several times over the centuries, and there is testimony that in 1267, 1546, and 1927 the Jordan did indeed dry up below the area of Adam.

⁷ In fact, Yehoshua's spies cross the Jordan within days of when the miracle occurs.

⁸ See Yehoshua 5:1, that when the nations of Canaan heard of the miracle, וַיִּמַּס לְבָבָם וְלֹא הָיָה בָם עוֹד רוּחַ מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל".

⁹ Vieiwng the miracle would help them recognize that Hashem stood behind them and was to help them in the Conquest, as Yehoshua tells the nation: "בְּזֹאת תֵּדְעוּן כִּי אֵל חַי "בְּקִרְבְּכֶם וְהוֹרֵשׁ יוֹרִישׁ מִפְּנֵיכֶם אֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי וְאֶת הַחִתִּי (Yehoshua 3:10).

¹⁰ See Hashem's words to Yehoshua: "הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה אָחֵל גַּדֶּלְךָ בְּעֵינֵי כׇּל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יֵדְעוּן כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר הָיִיתִי עִם מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ" (Yehoshua 3:8).  Providing a "repeat miracle" highlighted the point.

¹¹ See, for example, Bavli Avodah ZarahAvodah Zarah 25aAbout the Bavli, Bereshit Rabbah5:5About Bereshit Rabbah, and Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer52About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer.

¹² See R. Walfish, "עיון בפרשת עצירת השמש בגבעון", Megadim 38 (2003):43-52.

¹³ Of course, it is also possible that the war was nonetheless fought naturally.

¹⁴ Moshe's words in Devarim 31:2, "בֶּן מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא" imply that beforehand he had served in a military capacity.  Then again, as the wars against Arad, Sichon, Og and Midyan all took place in the fortieth year, by Moshe's own testimony he was no longer capable of fighting at this point.

¹⁵ See, for example, M. Naor, responding to Y. Yadin's lecture, "אספקטים צבאיים וארכיאולוגיים בתיאור הכיבוש" in עונים בתנ"ך בחוג הלימוד בבית דוד בן גוריון (Jerusalem, 1960): 94-95.

¹⁶ Moreover, if Yehoshua's goal was not land acquisition, but military devastation, as suggested above, the fact that Gilgal was not centrally located is much less problematic.

¹⁷ See his article, "תכנית כיבוש הארץ בספר יהושע" in ישראל והמקרא (Ramat Gan, 2000): 58-63.

¹⁸ Even though the two and half tribes had joined Yehoshua in the Conquest, there were certainly soldiers who must have remained behind to guard the families that had remained behind.

¹⁹ Since the land of Ephraim was essentially uninhabited forest, conquering Ai gave one control over the entire area.

²⁰ Yehoshua 9 suggests that this was indeed the initial plan of the Canaanites, "וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ כָּל הַמְּלָכִים אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן... וַיִּתְקַבְּצוּוּ יַחְדָּו לְהִלָּחֵם עִם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְעִם יִשְׂרָאֵל פֶּה אֶחָד".  This coalition is never heard from again, presumably because the plan was thwarted when the Givonites made peace with Israel, giving them control over the central territory.

²¹ See "אספקטים צבאיים וארכיאולוגיים בתיאור הכיבוש" in עונים בתנ"ך בחוג הלימוד בבית דוד בן גוריון (Jerusalem, 1960): 68-79.

²² A similar question arises when Hashem punishes the nation.  At first Hashem explicitly exempts only Calev from the decree (Bemidbar 14:24), adding Yehoshua's exemption only several verses later in 14:30.  Why is Yehoshua exceptional status not mentioned from the very beginning?

²³ This difference in outlook might be why it is Yehoshua, and not Calev, who leads the nation after Moshe's death. See, though, Abarbanel, who asserts that Calev, too, recognized from the outset the importance of highlighting Hashem's role, and that Calev only did not do so because he felt that Moshe would do a better job of it.

²⁴ See T. Granot's article, "פרשת שלח - בין כלב ליהושע בפרשת המרגלים" who develops this idea.

²⁵ See Shemot 24:13-14 which implies that Yehoshua at least accompanied Moshe further than had the elders.

²⁶ See Midrash AggadahShemot 24:13-14About Midrash Aggadah (Buber) who allows for this more radical possibility that Yehoshua had accompanied Moshe the entire way, and perhaps served his needs on the mountain throughout the forty days: מלמד שלא היה יהושע נפרש ממשה אלא בשעת הדיבור בלבד.

²⁷ Their understanding that the name change is related to Hashem and some sort of sanctification might match the similar name changes of Avraham, Sarah and Yaakov.

²⁸ One might then view the new name to mark a change of status (similar to Shadal's reading above) or perhaps as a sign of acquisition by a master.